Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    I'm not sure what you're getting at, Jack.
    
    Are you thinking one cannot refer to one's spouse as a Significant
    Other (Mate, Life Partner)?
    
    I believe the verse is actually 'perfect love casts out fear.'
    
    Well, I'm afraid of uncharitable attitudes.  I have other fears, but
    I have a feeling this isn't really what you're looking for.
    
    Richard

    Jack - I too am confused by your base note.  Please clarify before
    people answer a question that wasn't asked.

re Note 989.1 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

>     I'm not sure what you're getting at, Jack.
  
        I actually interpreted Jack's base note as a remarkably
        Christie-esque thought provoker regarding the relationship
        between love, fear, and in particular love for one's most
        beloved.

        Bob

    .4  Thanks, Bob.  Yes, I enjoy open-ended questions and the variety
    of responses they tend to evoke.
    
        I think it concerned me a little that A.) .0 followed so closely
    Patricia's use of the term 'significant other' in 3.140, and B.) there
    seemed to be an implication that the relationship might be one of less
    than total commitment.
    
    	Perhaps I'm reading into .0 something that ain't there.  I hope
    I am.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard

Certainly one can call one's spouse a "significant other".  In fact, the
original clinical definition of the term "significant others" does not
necessarily imply sex and includes spouses, siblings, children, close
friends, etc.

However, the term "my significant other" has taken on the _usual_ current
meaning of "the beloved person to whom I am not legally married but whom
I consider very much as though s/he were my spouse, at least this week" as
in the typical Digital invitation to a business social function which will
often state "spouses and/or significant others invited."

Now the real question:

Are Richard, Bob, and Debby playing dumb in replies .1 through .-1, or does
one have to be of a different mind set (wearing a different color of glasses)
to not immediately see that in .0 Jack is obviously saying

		Why are you not getting married?

to everyone who so happily tells the world of their "significant other".

/john

re Note 989.6 by COVERT::COVERT:

> Now the real question:
> 
> Are Richard, Bob, and Debby playing dumb in replies .1 through .-1, or does
> one have to be of a different mind set (wearing a different color of glasses)
> to not immediately see that in .0 Jack is obviously saying
> 
> 		Why are you not getting married?
> 
> to everyone who so happily tells the world of their "significant other".
  
        For me it probably is that I don't consider Jack so dumb that
        he couldn't have said that plainly if he meant than instead
        of his writing something with a broader, less sharply defined
        meaning.

        (In my original reply I was *disagreeing* with Richard, who
        saw the connotation you suggest.  I just didn't see it.  I
        guess I really am dumb!)

        Bob

	/john, I hear signifigant other used a lot. Sometimes it does mean what
you say, other times it means that they are not married, but not on the weekly
schedule for changes. For some it means someone they are committed to but not
married (sometimes due to religious differences), while some have had unions,
and for many others, it means marriage partner. 

	I actually hear it much more from the heterosexual community than I do 
from the homosexual community. But I think the heterosexual community hears it 
more from the homosexual community. I have found that when I am with my gay 
friends, they say girlfriend, boyfriend or lover most of the time. But these 
same people will use the SO term in the heterosexual community. 

	I have found most heterosexuals who do use the term SO are usually doing
so to be all inclusive. I have heard lover and partner used more often as well, 
but not at the same level as SO. 

	So I do agree that there are people who fit the description you have
when it comes to SO, I do not believe it is the most widely used meaning.


Glen

 >>   I think it concerned me a little that A.) .0 followed so closely
    
 >>   Patricia's use of the term 'significant other' in 3.140, and B.)
 >>   there seemed to be an implication that the relationship might be one of
 >>   less than total commitment.
 >>   Perhaps I'm reading into .0 something that ain't there.  I hope I am.
         
    Richard, congrats...you just won a cigar.  Perhaps my misunderstanding
    of the term did confuse everybody...sorry about that. 
    
    I am most definitely not separating Patricia here, but her reply did
    spur this topic since it was in the context of full commitment.
    John Covert is on the right track.  And please don't take this as a 
    pajorative string, but simply as a challenging question.  We have, in
    other strings, already been through the jargon about legalities, the
    piece of paper, makes no difference, etc etc etc.  What I am trying to
    do now is DIG deep into our minds and really pursue the answer to those
    who are living with a member of the opposite sex, who are 98% committed
    emotionally and physically, but for some reason are just holding back.
    
    -Jack  
    
    It's apparently clear of my views of this, that the perfect love isn't
    there if they are not willing to make a full commitment.        
    

        re Note 989.9 by AIMHI::JMARTIN

    > What I am trying to do now is DIG deep into our minds and really pursue
    > the answer to those who are living with a member of the opposite sex,
    > who are 98% committed emotionally and physically, but for some reason
    > are just holding back.

    Hmmm. Sounds to me like you're describing most couples after their
    fifth wedding anniversary. :^)

    Your question is thought provoking, but to brand unmarried couples
    as the "uncommitted" ones indicates a preoccupation with formality and
    ceremony rather than the issue of emotional love and commitment.
    
    Eric

    >>    Your question is thought provoking, but to brand unmarried couples
    >>    as the "uncommitted" ones indicates a preoccupation with formality
    >>    and ceremony rather than the issue of emotional love and commitment.
    
    Actually, what I said was 98% committed, I didn't say they were
    uncommitted, just not committed fully.  I have no doubt but that there
    may be men and women out there that would give their very lives for
    their significant other just as there are married couples that
    wouldn't.  Believe me I am sensitive to this.  For example, Joe's 
    relationship to Mary as a husband may not be on the outside as strong
    as Sally's relationship to Mark as a boyfriend.  But herein lies the
    difference.  Mark can leave Sally or Sally can leave Mark whereas
    Joe and Mary out of unselfish love are forced to make things work.  It
    may be very difficult and it may call for difficult years ahead...but
    now I ask you, which of the two couples are more committed to one
    another?
    
    -Jack

>Mark can leave Sally or Sally can leave Mark whereas Joe and Mary out of
>unselfish love are forced to make things work.

Joe and Mary are only required to make things work if they really believe
that their vows meant "until death do us part."

Most people don't today; most people see marriage as just a formal ceremony
with no more meaning (maybe even less meaning) than a glass of wine on a
rug before the fireplace in a nice room in a ski lodge.

/john

    -1 John and -2 Jack.
    
    I see in John's reply the seed of what is going through my mind.
    
    The 5-age committment must, surely, be subjective.  There will be some
    who see a union to be low-committed until the church has sanctified it,
    some who see a mixture, some who "accept" the church ceremony and
    swear by tha civil ceremomny, and others who feel 100% committed with
    neither church nor civil sanction.
    
    Who is to judge? Those within the partnership, would be my answer.
    
    Greetings, Derek.
    
    

    Derek:
    
    So is it then that there is no fear at all, that standing before even a
    justice of the peace is considered silly and meaningless...or is it
    that perhaps some people went through a nasty divorce, then when they
    meet Mr./Mrs. right, they are simply afraid?  I've seen this happen
    before and it is a real shame that the first bad marriage plants the
    seed of a lack of trust toward every other individual one has a
    relationship with.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 989.9 by AIMHI::JMARTIN >>>



| It's apparently clear of my views of this, that the perfect love isn't
| there if they are not willing to make a full commitment.

	Jack, if a ceremony and a piece of paper is needed to make the love
perfect, then me thinks you might be missing something here. 

	If someone wanted to be saved by Jesus, there are many ways to go about
it. They can go through a seminar course (I went through the Life in the Spirit
one myself), or they can just ask Jesus to save them on their own. Either way,
they are asking Jesus into their lives.

	If you take every part of marriage, with the exception of the ceremony,
why can't that be perfect love? I've seen many people go through the ceremony
who had a good marriage, and many who have not. Love is only perfect if it is
done by both sides. That is what is needed.


Glen

| <<< Note 989.11 by AIMHI::JMARTIN >>>



| For example, Joe's relationship to Mary as a husband may not be on the outside
| as strong as Sally's relationship to Mark as a boyfriend. But herein lies the
| difference.  Mark can leave Sally or Sally can leave Mark whereas Joe and Mary
| out of unselfish love are forced to make things work.  

	Jack, with a 50% divorce rate, how can you say this without a smiley. A
piece of paper and a ceremony is not going to make a marriage have the very
unselfish love you talk about. True love will. Unmarried couples can very well
and DO have great committed relationships. A piece of paper doesn't make a
committment, love does. 

	I know a lot of couples that "stayed together" for reasons that don't
deal with committment to their love. Some because they have kids, some because
they didn't want to go through the mess of a divorce. I wonder if we factor in
those, just how high would the divorce rate be?

| It may be very difficult and it may call for difficult years ahead...but
| now I ask you, which of the two couples are more committed to one another?

	Need to know about the couples before one could make a judgement. If
the only info we have is one is married, and one isn't, then there is not
enough infor to make any type of judgement.


Glen

    My suspicions have been confirmed.
    
    There is a notion that unless a commitment is somehow registered with
    the state it's less than authentic; incomplete.
    
    Ironically, I recall that Christian marriages were not always considered
    legitimate.  What was Valentine incarcerated for?
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    
    PS  I don't think it's dumb to seek confirmation.
    

      I think its audacious for anyone to suggest we are perfect
      in love.  I don't think its possible for a person who is
      perfect in love to sin - even for a moment.  And should 
      someone be sinless, he wouldn't claim it as he wouldn't know
      it (Job 9:20,21).
    
      As far as this string goes...
    
      I kind of think there are so many different couples about these
      days.  There are many who are not married and who have a deep 
      love for each other.  There are others who are married who may
      not love each other and are 'staying with it' by gritting their
      teeth.
    
      But, there may also be those couples whose marriage was an outward
      covenant of union made before God and whose love for each other
      grows as they, in unison, seek the Lord to mold their hearts after
      His own.
    
                                                          Tony

    Glen:
    
    Yes, Adam and Eve didn't have a ceremony either.  What I am submitting
    here is that many couples do believe in the "ceremony" but are
    schluffing it off due to fear....fear of being hurt and fear of total
    commitment.  It is to those I ask...what are you afraid of?  And then,
    if the relationship is based on love...but not pure love due to fear, 
    then what is the fear based on?
    
    Ya see Glen, I believe there are alot of scared people out there hiding
    behind the walls of..."It's just a piece of paper...it's only a
    ceremony, etc.  Au contraire...it is far more than that.  
    
    -Jack

 >>   There is a notion that unless a commitment is somehow registered
 >>   with the state it's less than authentic; incomplete.
    
    Richard, we've been there and done this one before.  What I'm asking
    is, what are people afraid of?

re Note 989.20 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>  >>   There is a notion that unless a commitment is somehow registered
>  >>   with the state it's less than authentic; incomplete.
>     
>     Richard, we've been there and done this one before.  What I'm asking
>     is, what are people afraid of?
  
        I don't see any necessary connection between "fear" and
        choosing not to formally wed.  Of course there *could* be a
        connection in a particular case, just as, no doubt, many
        people choose to marry out of one kind of fear or another.

        Jack, you're married, right?  What are *you* afraid of?

        Bob

    "What are you afraid of?" i.e. what is keeping you from making a vow
    before one another and to God?
    
    Been there...done that!!!  I guess I fear nothing!
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 989.22 by AIMHI::JMARTIN >>>

| "What are you afraid of?" i.e. what is keeping you from making a vow
| before one another and to God?


	Well, first off, if the people believe in God, then they may include
Him into things. It would depend on if they think He belongs there. Many people
I see getting married that have very good relationships, don't really care
about the God factor in the ceremony, and think it's just part of tradition.
This is why when you say include God, it does not cover anyone. It also kind of
makes those who are not Christian who are married less of a real relationship.
While I believe God is important, I believe a relationship can be strong for
some without Him. 

	
Glen

    OK Glen, then let's look at it purely from a civil, legal issue.
    Leave God out of it.
    
    NOW I ask the question...What are you afraid of?
    
    

| <<< Note 989.24 by AIMHI::JMARTIN >>>


| NOW I ask the question...What are you afraid of?

	That I would marry someone for the sake of getting married, as I'm not
allowed to marry the one who I love. (you knew this was coming, right?) Jack,
when Mr. Right comes along, I would go through a ceremony of marriage, or a
union, if that's what we both agreed upon. I have no problem with it. But I do
know that a relationship where one goes through the rituals doesn't have any
greater chance of working correctly than one that didn't go through the
rituals. The ONLY thing that will make any relationship work, is love. Without
it, the relationship is doomed. With it, chances are it will work. Paper is
paper, but love is something real. 

	But I do get a feeling you're waiting for people to say certain things,
stuff you already have formulated in your mind. IF this is the case, could you
just list them for us?


Glen

    What I have formulated is mostly that people will say what a horrible
    experience they have had and do not want to go through it again. 
    Again, the purpose of the string was to honestly ask why people fear
    getting married...and I acknowledge there can be many very legitimate
    reasons why.  Addressing the alternative to it (living together) is a 
    separate issue.
    
    What prompted me to start this is again, I find people arguing the
    legal/ceremonial points...only to hide their true fear.  To answer this
    question requires vulnerability!!
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 989.26 by AIMHI::JMARTIN >>>



| What I have formulated is mostly that people will say what a horrible
| experience they have had and do not want to go through it again.

	Of those who say it Jack, were they in a relationship only, or were
they married. If married, how many of them do you think will end up getting
married in the end. I guess it would be nice to know if you're one who believes
that most people use the term SO in the way John Covert described a few notes
back.



Glen

	Re: .19 and others from Jack.

	I do not doubt that there are some who do not take the state/church
	sanctioning of their union because their is a trace of remaining
	doubt.

	However, I feel that you are painting with too broad a brush: I
	think that these people are in the minimum.

	My first marriage was "unsanctioned" simply because, as a minor, I
	needed the OK of my commanding officer, who refused it. It crashed,
	admittedly, but it would have done so even if sanctioned.

	A good friend is "living in sin" because both she and her husband
	do not want to be entered into yet another state-owned or church-
	owned data bank. 18 years so far.

	There are thousands of couples in England who took advantage of 
	laws (now long overhauled) which gave single people a significant
	tax-break and "never bothered" to update their "legality" when the
	advantages were legislated away.

	Jack! Your own attitude towards state intervention in private lives
	has been made adequately clear in these notes. Can you see that
	there may be many who share your views on this?  And many of those
	could well extend this attitude towards the church. Would you say
	that this is out of fear? Or are they simply extending your own
	rationality into a domain -- religion -- where you have reached
	different conclusions?

	Greetings, Derek.

    >>    Jack! Your own attitude towards state intervention in private lives
    >>    has been made adequately clear in these notes. Can you see that
    >>    there may be many who share your views on this?  And many of
    >>    those could well extend this attitude towards the church. Would you
    >>    say that this is out of fear? Or are they simply extending your own
    >>    rationality into a domain -- religion -- where you have reache
    >>    different conclusions?
    
    I consider the church and the state as two entities with vastly
    different responsibilities.  The state is here to uphold the precepts
    of the Constitution.  They are not here to take on the role of the 
    local church which they continually try to do.  To uphold the
    Constitution involves implementing legislation to keep order and to
    fund the upholding of the Constitution.  The State recognizes the
    family unit and hence establishes laws to recognize the family.  The
    laws on the books are there to protect the recognition of the family
    but because the scope of family is being redefined, certain laws are
    now being outdated and unnecessary.  These laws are important because
    of state imposed benefits, divorce proceedings, property ownership,
    etc.
    
    The Church on the other hand is quite different.  They are supposed to
    be the character builders, the teachers of the Word, and most pertinent
    to the topic, they are RESPONSIBLE to admonish and exhort believers
    into spiritual guidance.  This means that if we do what is morallt
    incorrect, we can do one of two things.
    
    1. Accept our accountability to the authority of the local church.
    
    2. Reject the authority of the church, leave the church, and find a
       more suitable church...or don't go to church at all.
    
    I firmly believe that when one joins a local church, they are
    accountable to uphold the bilaws and covenants of that church.
    
    -Jack

    .30  Base upon what you're saying, I take you find a covenantal union
    solemnized by the church acceptable, even if not registered with or
    regulated by the state.  True?
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Good food for thought.  I'm inclined to say true as no doubt there are
    countries not requiring the marriage to be registered with the state,
    only with their place of worship.   I guess I consider the vow before God 
    and one another far more substantive than the paper legalities of it.
    
    -Jack

    Richard,
    
    Now you are not playing cat and mouse with Jack are You?
    
    Patricia

>    .30  Base upon what you're saying, I take you find a covenantal union
>    solemnized by the church acceptable, even if not registered with or
>    regulated by the state.  True?

I think one would have to ask the question:  "Why are you refusing to
register with or submit to the state's regulations?"

At least in the Episcopal Church and the Roman Catholic Church, the Church
is forbidden by its own canon law to solemnize the marriage of anyone who
has not met all requirements of the state.

Is there some sort of state persecution?  That could be a justification,
if the persecution is widely believed to be unjust.

Is it to avoid taxation, or to circumvent the terms of a state social
program, a pension plan, or a will?  That would not be a legitimate reason;
we have a responsibility to pay legitimate taxes and to honor contracts.

The bottom line is that marriage is an honorable estate, a formal and public
committment to be celebrated with and approved of by the community.

/john

    Some churches will perform  Holy Union ceremonies where the State will
    not allow the ceremony to be registered.  I am proud to say, That is part
    of the regular practice of my Church.
    
                                         Patricia

    .35  It's true, and that's probably what was dancing around at the
    back of my mind when I asked.  I was a member of a church for 2 years
    where the same situation holds true.
    
    I don't think it's all as simple as some would like to be able to make
    it.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    You're right...it isn't as black and white as one could think.
    
    I believe the power of the church should supercede the power of the
    state in this matter.
    
    -Jack

 >>       You're right...it isn't as black and white as one could think.
    
 >>       I believe the power of the church should supercede the power of the
 >>       state in this matter.
    
    I would like to expound on this a little.  At the same time, I firmly 
    believe the local church is absolutely accountable to God.  If a chuch
    is sanctioning a marriage that is unsanctified or unclean before God, 
    then I believe the Church to be in apostacy and they are not 
    fulfilling the mandates of the New Testament.  
    
    At this point, it is my personal belief that homosexual marriages and 
    marriages of a believer and a non believer are unsanctified. 
    Corinthians tell us to be not unequally yoked with non believers and 
    man lying with man is considered an abomination under the Mosaic law!
    
    -Jack

    Corinthians tell us to be not unequally yoked with non believers

"yoked with non believers"????

Jack, you amuse me.

Steve

    New testament terminology...Not I that amuses you.  It is Paul the
    apostle!
    
    -Jack

Note 989.38

> an abomination under the Mosaic law!

Let us thank God in Christ we're set free from Mosaic, and more specifically
Levitical, law.  (Paul's letter to the Galatians)

Shalom,
Richard

re .41

Only from those commandments called Ritual, and not those called Moral.

/john

    .42  No such division was made by the ancients.  And neither does
    the Bible make such a distinction.  But thanks anyway.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

re .43

   Acts 15 makes that distinction.

   The Jews always made that distinction for the aliens living among them.

/john

    .44  Acts 15 records an exercise in compromise and, moreover, contains
    elements of the ceremonial (Not exclusively moral).
    
    Richard
    

We disagree about absolute morality.

Unless you change your opinion, we will probably always disagree.

/john

	Re: .30 Jack.

	Jack, I take no issue with your description of the separate roles
	of state and church (upholding constitution/responsible to believers
	for spiritual guidance), and I apologize if I appeared to oversimplify
    	your attitude towards them.

	However, my point was not from the "top-down" point of view but from
	the "bottom-up".  It is fine for these organisations to preach that
	this or that is a crime/sin or good citizenship/unchristian but, if
	they fail to persuade their members, where does the fault lie when
	those members fail to meet the criteria?

	Especially when there are large slices of life which, of necessity
	if a society is to remain viable, are addressed by both church and
	state. And -- I am assuming USA is not significantly other [ :-) ]
	than European countries -- often, the rules are in diametric oppo-
	sition, especially at the personal and, often, intimate level.

	As I pointed out, fear is not a motivator in many cases. Remaining
	single to take advantage of tax-breaks, for example. (By the way,
	tax avoidance is legitimate, tax evasion is not [to address a later
	note briefly]). Here, I would argue, fear -- of that which
	some churches try to engender by invoking the devil and promising 
	hell for sinners -- has failed to be a factor.

	My question, slighly rephrased: can you see that there are many who,
	having weighed church and state rules, chose a path (unmarried 
	union) without fear?
		
	Greetings, Derek.
        

| I would like to expound on this a little. At the same time, I firmly believe 
| the local church is absolutely accountable to God. If a church is sanctioning 
| a marriage that is unsanctified or unclean before God, then I believe the 
| Church to be in apostacy and they are not fulfilling the mandates of the New 
| Testament.  
    
| At this point, it is my personal belief that homosexual marriages and 
| marriages of a believer and a non believer are unsanctified. Corinthians tell
| us to be not unequally yoked with non believers and man lying with man is 
| considered an abomination under the Mosaic law!
    

	Ok, while I do agree that the above is Jack's belief, and he does have
the right to believe this way, it is not part of my personal belief, in either
case. Love, to me, is the deciding factor. Let's take a look at what the
marriage of a believer and non-believer could possibly do. 

1) The unbeliever could become a child of God. To not allow this marriage will
   do nothing except keep 2 people who are in love with one another, away from
   each other.

2) What could be a long lasting love was stopped from the beginning. It could
   show that those who feel they are saved, are somehow better than those who
   are perceived to not be saved. This in itself is a mistake. If we want all
   people to be saved, why are we not allowing these marriages? 

3) I see people in here who's spouses are at different belief levels. With some
   people I have come in contact with, their spouses aren't even at the point
   YET of being saved. But they stick together and make their marriage work. 
   So why not allow mixed yoke marriages from the beginning? Oh, I know it would
   be much EASIER to just marry someone who is saved, but is easier always 
   better? If LOVE is there, love for one another, in both good and bad times, 
   then there should be NO reason why they should not marry.



Glen

    Yes Glen...the human factor.  This time you fell for it! :-)
    
    The world is more likely to bring me down before I bring the world up.
    
    Keep in mind that Lot initially went to Sodom and put his tent up
    outside the city.  He was going to change the hearts of those fools.
    Well, by the end, not only did he have his own house in the city, he
    also stood at the gate and was considered an elder of the city. 
    Furthermore, his wife continued to yearn for Sodom and hence, we know
    what happened to her!!!
    
    God commanded the Israelites not to intermarry.  Their disobedience led 
    to Baal worship and ultimately, destruction.  Solomon took on foreign
    wives.  Solomon fell into Baal worship.  
    
    -Jack

    .46  Well said, John.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard